Read on Twitter
@andrewrsorkin is optimistic abt @blackrock coming announcement on climate disclosure. #polisci has a lot to say abt the politics of standard setting. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/business/dealbook/larry-fink-letter-blackrock-climate.html
THREAD
THREAD
1/ tl:dr politics of standard setting is v technocratic, and thus often flies under the political radar. This *can* be good for gov’ts to produce rigorous rules, but often gives private firms a lot of leeway to make their own rules.
2/ @blackrock wants firms to think long term abt climate and disclose disclose disclose. bears repeating that this supposes that climate-smart behavior is *demand driven* by investors who have long time horizons and the resources to wade thru all this info.
3/ the standards for disclosure are not straightforward. lots of corporate reports don’t include #scope3. Could be a greenwashing dodge, could also be because its REALLY COMPLICATED. https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/standards/Scope3_Calculation_Guidance_0.pdf
4/ Sorkin points out that there’s already jockeying over what stds to use. This is an old story. Good part – it can produce more robust standards and more political buy in. My book tells this story. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691157580/rethinking-private-authority
5/ Bad part – it can produce weak standards, a form of regulatory capture. Forestry standards show how competition between standards can go pear-shaped. Lots of fragmentation and weaker industry standard is still important @graeme_auld https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/978030010
6/ Worst case scenario – crappy private standards can get adopted by gov’ts. Some private offset standards (which Sorkin rightly identifies as “sketchy”) are recognized by gov’ts. These are not always robust. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03050629.2016.1210943 FIN
